Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.543 (2026)

Interception of communications

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      165.543 Interception of communications. (1) Except as provided in ORS 133.724 or as provided in ORS 165.540 (2)(a), any person who willfully intercepts, attempts to intercept or procures any other person to intercept or attempt to intercept any wire or oral communication where such person is not a party to the communication and where none of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

      (2) As used in this section, the terms “intercept” and “wire or oral communication” have the meanings provided under ORS 133.721. [1983 c.824 §3]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1987–2025 · leading case: Proj. Veritas v. Michael Schmidt, 72 F.4th 1043 (9th Cir. 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Proj. Veritas v. Michael Schmidt, 72 F.4th 1043 (9th Cir. 2023). “Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.543 (1). Instead, Project Veritas plans to record conversations in which its reporters participate by using concealed recording devices and not giving notice that the conversations are being recorded.”
Skoog v. Cnty. of Clackamas, 469 F.3d 1221 (9th Cir. 2006). “COSTS TO DEFENDANTS. 1 . The facts are derived from the complaint, supporting documentation, and the district court’s opinion, and are interpreted in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”
State v. Lissy, 737 P.2d 617 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). “Section 3 is codified as ORS 165.543, with a note that the legislature did not specify where it belonged in ORS.”
State v. Baker, 134 P.3d 962 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “ORS 165.543. Defendant appealed. While defendant’s appeal was pending, an order to show cause was issued requiring defendant to appear in court for failure to pay fines and costs totaling $1,079.”
Proj. Veritas v. Schmidt, 553 F. Supp. 3d 831 (D. Or. 2021). · cites it 3× “Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.543 (1) (2019). “Intercept” is defined as “the acquisition, by listening or recording, of the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.”
Proj. Veritas v. Michael Schmidt, 125 F.4th 929 (9th Cir. 2025). · cites it 2× “See Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.543 (1). Rather, Project Veritas seeks to conduct undercover investigations in Oregon, and it contends that Oregon’s conversational privacy statute prevents it from doing so.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.